Skip to main content
6:00 am
>> this week on the journal, editorial report. obama's next move. how will the white house respond to republican scott brown's victory in the bay state? we'll preview next week's state of the union address and handicap the chances of still passing health care reform. plus, a landmark supreme court decision up ends decades of campaign finance law. what it means for the mid term eleks ahead. welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul giggo. first up tonight, obama's next move. will tuesday night's stunning upset in massachusetts cause the president to shift to the center? or further to the left? democratic polster doug shone joins me now with his take on the lessons learned from the bay state. welcome. good to have you back. you've worked in the white house, clinton white house after a defeat like this. tell us about the debate inside
6:01 am
about how to respond? >> well, in the clinton white house poll there was no debate. there was a clear recognition by the president he had to move to the center, be pro balanced budget, fiscal discipline, job creation, moderate social. >> after 1994. >> that's correct. i think in this white house as your question suggests, there will be a huge debate between the populous on one hand led by people like david axle rod. >> the chief white house political advisor. >> yes, he is. >> and the counselor to the president and other more pro business, centrist like rahm emanuel who were there in 94, 95, 96 and saw how repositioning the president got him reelected. >> let's talk about health care, the centrist, people want to move to the middle. do they get some on board and recraft the plan. >> their paegs is the republicans don't want to do bipartisanship, and incrementalism is the word of
6:02 am
the day. that means if they can get insurance reform cover through preexisting conditions and portability. >> smaller bits. >> smaller bits. if they can get the republicans in, paul, not only pays dividends to the country, it pays dividends politically. >> populous on health care, what does that mean? the president is already attacked the health insurers, he attacks the special interests all the time. what would it mean to-- how can you get anymore populous than he's been? >> there are people on the left in this white house and particularly in the congress who say he hasn't been populous enough, you have to attack the big banks, big insurers and the big polluters and not abandon the so-called public option, and be robust, aggressive, on health care and other issues as well. >> but you couldn't get the public option, you couldn't get the public option through the senate and yet, it is, are they saying double down now and you'll move public opinion more so you can finally get it through? >> the argument, paul, you have to give people a choice. a real choice. and frame the elections as the
6:03 am
republicans who are being obstructionist and the democrats who have had clear social agenda, that is unam bbiguous a involved, an overhaul of the economic and social structure. >> but in terms of health care this would mean giving up on getting anything this year and putting it to a referendum to the public in november, and then hoping to do it next year, is that the calculus? >> it would be let's try to do something, and if we can't, make it clear what we stand for, and what the republicans, by siding, presumably on the side of the banks and the insurance companies in this instance are obstructing and give people a clear choice in november. >> what do you think the administration's big mistake was on health care? >> oh, i think their big mistake in the gypping was not getting the republicans in the room, as we did in '95 and '96, finding areas of common ground and making it clear that on insurance reform, on cost control, on record keeping and on incrementally expanding coverage, that there was common ground.
6:04 am
if the president had done that, the republicans would have been forced to go along, particularly at the start of the administration. >> you know, what makes me amazed is we've seen this movie twice before. the early part of jimmy carter's administration and the early part of particularly bill clinton's administration. you bow to the congressional left with big democratic majorities and it hurts you until you either recover in the face of bill clinton or you don't, in the case of jimmy carter. why didn't they learn the lesson of that this time? >> because they had big majorities, seemingly veto-proof majorities in both the house and senate and the democratic left in the house, paul, is i think we both agree, is so powerful that the president couldn't really resist them, resist that. by not resisting, he fell into the same trap you spoke of. >> all right, who's going to win this debate inside the white house, which way is the president going to go? >> well, i think he's having to vacillate back and forth. the ultimate is populous, i think the forces of power, the unions, sciu, the left, are
6:05 am
going to make the case that we have to present that clear choice i was speaking of before, on financial reform, on health care reform and on the environment and if they give the voters a clear choice in november, i think it's going to be a clear, unambiguous defeat for that. >> wait a minute, here, when i talk to liberals, they say it worked franklin delano roosevelt, and hair i truman in 1948, why can't it again? >> when you look at suburban swing vote errings, they have been rejecting these kind of policies and democratic candidates who espouse them since november of '09, two to three margins. >> that didn't work in virginia, although the left would say they didn't try it in virginia or new jersey and coakley didn't try it and tried in massachusetts? >> well, i suggest they tried too much and by not really being able to convince people that these populous policies make sense, they suffered a big defeat at the ballot box. >> what would be be your
6:06 am
recommendation? >> a centrist policy emphasizing fiscal discipline, reducing the deficit and most importantly private sector job creation, unless we do things like that, payroll tax holiday, aid to small business, and immediate steps to stimulate job creation in the private sector, we're not going to succeed, the democrats aren't going to succeed. >> so a focus on the economy, jobs and deficit reduction, which was really the focus of bill clinton's first term. >> it was the focus of-- >> the second two years of that for sure. >> second two years of bill clinton's first term and also john f. kennedy's economic policies. he supported tax cuts, a rising tide will lift all boats. there is a legacy in the democratic party for fiscally prudent, pro business, pro job creation policies. they've got to get back to that and get back quickly with fiscal discipline, if they don't they'll be cooked in november. >> all right, thanks so much, for being here and follow your advice. when we come back, the future of obama care. did speaker pelosi feel the debt
6:07 am
loaded democratic reform plans this week. our panel weighs in afterererern mmmmmm. mmmmmm. wow! you have got to be kidding me. 80 calories? light & fit has 80 calories versus 100 in the other leading brand. light & fit. irresistible taste. fewer calories. i love light & fit. host: could switching to geico 15% or more on car insurance?
6:08 am
host: does charlie daniels play a mean fiddle? ♪ fiddle music charlie:hat's how you do it son. vo: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. we make the sale. we make our month. we make our year. will you have 3g coverage when you need it most ? kick the small-business blues by putting your business on the map. oh, come on ! check, please. get almost 5x more 3g coverage than at&t with verizon wireless. come into a store today to buy one blackberry and get another one free. and put your business on the map.
6:09 am
>> the big question after tuesday is what will happen to president obama's top priority of health care reform? house speaker nancy pelosi said late this week that she lacks the vote to quickly move the senate bill through the house. taking off the table what many saw as the last best chance to
6:10 am
save the legislation. joining the panel this week, wall street journal columnist and deputy editor, dan ettinger, senior editorial health care page writer, joe, and kim extrasle. all right, kim. so, the question everybody wants to know the answer to, has speaker pelosi buried health care this week? >> you know, what we do know is that the strategies that they were using, the bills in the house and senate, they are done. you know, that the senate can no longer pass what the house had put forward and had no desire to, the host speaker pelosi said they cannot pass the senate bill. question now shall what can they salvage instead. a couple of options. >> paul: are you saying it's not dead yet? >> i'm saying that what they've got out there at the moment is stuck. it's not going anywhere, so the question is how do you maneuver and change and try to salvage something different out of that? >> the first question, can she,
6:11 am
speaker pelosi, rally enough democrats in the coming weeks, particularly if the president gives a good state of the union address next week and we need to fight republicans. can they rally enough votes to get the senate bill through the house? >> no, i do not think so. what you've got right now is a number of house blue dogs who are very worried about what this means for november, they're looking at the senate massachusetts race and they see that magnified in their own races. >> paul: these are the moderate democrats and they're not going to come around. >> that's right. you also have a lot of house liberals who are detest elements of the senate bill, in particular this cadillac tax, the entire party is worried about passing legislation that now has the stigma of these back room deals, special payoffs to certain senators so i don't see this bill going anywhere. >> paul: what about this other idea people are talking about, joe, senate reconciliation, a buzz word, washington process word. what it means is trying to get some parts of the bill through with 51 votes, not 60, as they
6:12 am
have tried to get needed in the past. is that likely? >> right. well, that basically entails starting over. it's the same thing for another option which is a stripped down bill where you might see a modest coverage expansion, so insurance, well, reforms is what they're called in the beltway. >> paul: right. >> they're pretty destructive, but at that really requires you to go back to the committees, it's not hold hearings, at least hold votes and there's all sorts of paradal trip wires everywhere and they have to decide if they want to spend another two months, three months on a health care plan that's really unpopular and the well is poisoned in a lot of ways or just do nothing and move to jobs and austerity budget. >> paul: dan, the other option, i think probably the best one politically, would be to take doug shone's advice, go back to republicans, see if you can get a half dozen or maybe ten or so on a stripped down bill and then
6:13 am
try to pass that in a bipartisan fashion and salvage something from that. is that possible? >> i think it is possible. it's-- it will be difficult for the reason that kim suggested there are liberals who are dug in and refuse to do that, but your suggestion raises what i think is the big x factor going forward and that is the new senator, scott brown. now, he's a freshman senator. >> only one vote. >> he's only one vote, but this guy has a moment right here. he is somehow representing the voice of the people. otherwise why are we having this conversation? that's what scott brown just did in massachusetts and whatever he says on this bill, i think, is going to carry a lot more weight than any freshman senator previously and if they can find a way to pull him into the compromise you're suggesting, that might be a path forward for them. >> paul: kim, what about the li olympia snowe shall the main republican voting for it before
6:14 am
she voted against it on the senate floor when it moved less. is there a critical mass of republicans, a half dozen that the president could maybe get on a stripped down bill? >> there might be, there's two problems, so much in this bill is connect today other parts of the bill. take, for instance, the insurance regulation, one of the reasons that the business community signed on to insurance regulation was because they felt they were going to get money back because of this individual mandate, which required people to buy insurance. >> more customers. >> more customers, you get rid of the individual mandate and you stel try to do insurance reform and you have a very angry business community that turns against this legislation, too. so, it's hard to pluck pieces out of it. the second problem is a lot of republicans are just simply angry about the way that they were cut out of this process and they don't any longer necessarily see any upside in now deciding to play nice. so this is the problem the administration's got. >> so the price for republicans just went up? >> yeah, now, i mean, it's going
6:15 am
to really require starting over. it's going to require tearing up this bill that they started from the left and starting from the center instead, which will mean instead of mandates, you have to go to incentives and you have to rethink sort of the entire ideological and political thrust of the-- >> that's hard to did in an election year, dan. >> exactly. >> i can't remember a time when a party did it. >> democratic congressman chris van holland head of the democratic campaign committee wants out of this. he says we want to talk about jobs, we want to move forward and i think there are a lot of democrats who just wanted to get this thing off the table. >> paul: get this carcass out to the side and pushing it out and talk about jobs and the economy. and when we come back the supreme court court strikes a blow tore free speech and up ends decades of campaign finance restrictions and what it means for the 2010 mid term elections ♪ ♪
6:16 am
♪ [ male announcer ] the cadillac cts sport sedan. one of car and driver's 10 best for the third year in a row. ♪ annow, cadillac announces the new luxury collection lease. ♪
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
>> in a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the supreme court ruled this week that corporations, unions and nonprofits can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for public office. in a 5-4 decision, the court threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that prohibits companies and unions from using money from their genertreasures to produce run their own campaign ads and the justices struck down part of the 2002 mccain-fine gold law and corporate booked issue ads in the closing day of election campaigns. president obama blasted the decisions calling it a victory for big oil, wall street and other interests and would work with congress to craft a quote, forceful response. editor joins us and senior
6:20 am
editorle yal page writer colin levy. the president is riled up about this. should he be upset? after all, unions and corporations are both going to benefit from this. >> right, i mean, i think that's the key point. the idea that this is a decision that exclusively benefits conservatives is actually ridiculous. even if you just look at corporations, corporations, sure don't speak only with one voice and unions, certainly who are going to speak a lot more and are generally mr politically active are going to benefit from this. your going to have a situation with a lot more political speech, but that's going to be diverse. >> the corporations will not be able to give directly to individual candidates, but what the unions will be able to do is donate to independent groups that can then spend on behalf of a certain issue or something else. but this is a big, big hole in campaign finance law that's been developed since the last 25, 30 years since watergate. can that kind of-- can those restrictions even
6:21 am
survive this other restrictions survive going forward? >> well, i think it's going to be, become increasingly difficult, but you make a good point. one of the things you have to remember here, this is not as though all the architecture of campaign finance has been demolished. you still have individual contribution limits and limits on the way that, you know, candidates can coordinate with parties. so, and you still have disclosure limits as the supreme court upheld yesterday. so the real ideal here would be to keep the disclosure limits and basically get rid of everything else, as much speech out there as possible. >> paul: james, what do you think this means for the future of campaign politics. >> one reason the politicians are upset about this, it makes a lot harder for them to control their message. as you say the supply is only independent expenditures and the limits on donations to campaigns are still in place, and as are the limits on so-called soft money in mccain-finegold. this means that the independent expenditures are going to have a lot more to say and it's harder for politicians.
6:22 am
if congress were smart they'd reregulate the whole thing. >> paul: they make the case that this is going to corrupt american democracy because the wealthy interests are going to have an enormous sway now. >> i find this one of the most fascinating aspects of the decision, paul. the justice stevens wrote this famous 90-page dissent in which he argued the founding fathers basically didn't like corporatio corporations. >> paul: so they shouldn't have free speech. >> so they shouldn't have free speech. consider the reaction on the political side. senator schumer says he is going to introduce legislation immediately to modify the decision and president obama himself denounced this decision in favor-- basically what they're saying is corporate america, the private sector, is the enemy. we don't like these people. but corporate america has shareholders and employees and basically, as justice scalia argued in his concurrence is part of the free market economy that is basically the system
6:23 am
that we've gotten in this country. why are they going to get on the wrong side of that? >> colin, this levels the decision and playing field between corporations because if before you had an exemption under the law if you were a media company like newscorp, our own or the new york times company. nobody says we can't write editorials opposing or endorsing candidates, but if you were another kind of corporation and you didn't own a newspaper or a radio station you were subject to the limits. >> right, i mean, this is a very awkward thing that those rules have created. this is a situation where previous laws have said certain people can speak and certain people can't speak and that's what the supreme court really came out against yesterday and dan makes a good point, you know, the idea here is that corporations are not illegal. and as long as they're not illegal they should have those same rights that individual have. and that's what the supreme court established. and justice kennedy made the point in his opinion for the court there's no basis in the constitution for distinguishing between media corporations and other corporations, so if this
6:24 am
is constitutional congress could regulate the press directly. >> paul: that's right, and some of the restrictions here could get to the point of regulating books that are about a candidate. right. >> books. >> paul: by a corporation. >> this case involved a movie. >> paul: a movie. so anybody, george soros, the liberal financier, sports democrats was investigated in fact by the federal election commission in 2004, as you reported this week, about what-- whether he was illegally influencing campaigns. >> yes, that's right. this is something that can affect, certainly affect liberals as much as it can conservatives. we know there's been all sorts of very popular new york times best selling liberal books out there. and so that's something that they should be concerned about e what does the case, the ruling tell us about the roberts court, james? because it was supposed to be an incremental court and here they've overturned two precedents. is this getting, are they
6:25 am
finding their, their center of gravity as a conservative court? >> well, to some extent. these were precedents in which justice kennedy always the swing vote was a dissenter. one other thing i think it tells you though is the four liberal justices were in the dissent here. liberals have largely-- the idea that free speech is a liberal cause has largely gone by the way side. >> paul: really? thanks, james very much. we have to take one more break. when we come back our hits and misses of the week. [ male announcer ] introducing the all-new lexus gx. it has the agility and the power to take on any mission, and the space to accommodate precious cargo, because every great action hero needs a vehicle. see your lexus dealer. ♪
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
>> time for our hits and misses. >> a hit to hillary clinton who gave a speech making internet freedom a foreign policy priority for united states. this is an issue of course because google fears its system in china was hacked into as well as iran's efforts this year to suppress the internet curing a pro democracy demonstration there. what's interesting, back in 1998 at the height of the clinton scandals, hillary clinton said that the internet had to be rethought. now, if in fact, because of what's going on she has seen the larger social freedom issues involved here, this is a huge hit for secretary clinton. >> paul: james. >> i have a miss for the transportation security administration. 22-year-old rebecca solomon was going through airport security in philadelphia when a tsa agent pulled a plastic bag carrying white powder where she'd gotten
6:29 am
it. it turned out the tsa guy planted it on her as a joke. and the tsa says the guy lost his jobben can't name him because of privacy laws. i think they should be criminal charged so there can be a name a and-- >> kim. >> a slimy miss to john edward. this is a guy vehement ly denie the affair and when he's having an aide step forward and say the baby is his and only now admitting indeed the baby is mr. he had edwards'. so the most appalling thing about this, too, appeared to be going all the way to the presidency and lying and covering this up if the voters would only let him. >> all the aides who knew about him and the former aides and didn't explain and tell people, they should be banned from politics. that's it for this week's edition of the journal, editorial report. thank to my panel and all of you for watching, i am paul gigot,
6:30 am
hope to he see you right here next week. >> on news watch. >> the independent voice of massachusetts has spoken! >> democrats failed to keep a blue seat in the senate and the liberal press looks to undermine the outcome. >> want today apologize for calling senator elect scott brown, an exnude-- against women and politicians with whom he disagrees. >> has the mainstream media missed the message? more images of the heart break in haiti as the press does its best to dri the story. some reporters blur the lines and become the story. fox news alert. >> the reason why we've got the extremes and the reaction to the objective mainstream media, that is so not objective when you have most of them being democrats or liberals running it, okay? and that's why we have fox. >> jon: can mainstream media members come to terms with their
6:31 am
left leaning views. americans say they want less government, but is one big paper in washington keeping that a secret? is this who we think it is? how does the national inquirer get these pictures? >> hold up, hold up, hold it, ho hold. >> jon: after a year with president obama has his relationship with the press taken a turn? >> no, no, old on, hold on, hold on. >> jon: on the panel this week, writer and fox news contributor judy miller, syndicated columnist cal thomas, jim pinkerton, fellow new american foundation and news day columnist. and i'm jon scott, fox news watch is on right now. >> my assessment of not just about massachusetts, but the mood around the country, you know, the same thing that swept scott brown in office, swept me into office. people are angry and they're frustrated. not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over
6:32 am
the last eight years. >> jon: president obama's reaction there on wednesday to a big democratic loss the night before, losing former senator kennedy's senate seat to republican scott brown, making big headlines the next morning. from the boston globe, the boston harold, "the washington post" and the new york times, jim, when you listen to the president sound bite there, it sounded a bit like he was blaming george bush for scott brown's victory? why didn't george stephanopoulos call him out on that. >> you mean the former clinton white house aide, george stephanopoulos who figures if he asks a an antagonistic questione might not get the exclusive next time? i don't know. >> jon: but that was kind of an odd statement for the president. >> the first part was true, a desire for change sweeps through the capital and through the country and results in an upset, but the second part, blaming it on bush, that's getting a little tired and it's just amazing to me, and i'm surprised, he,
6:33 am
george stephanopoulos has evolved. you know that, jim. and i'm surprised he didn't pick up on that because it was an obvious question. >> jon: elliss when you go back to the headlines that we saw at the beginning of the segment, did the media not understand that a republican might win? >> well, i think the media was in the same place as the politicians were, if you go back a month, jon, nobody knew this was going to happen and i think honestly, we blow a lot of things in the media, but i don't think you can expect the media to predict thing where there were no polls, every fact is going in the opposite direction and when it happened, my god, we covered the heck out of it. >> jon: don't you think there was a tendency to say, scott brown is winning, that can't be right? >> that's what made it a great sorry when it swung him that direction, an unexpected political development. i don't remember a senate race covered more than this one, do you. >> jon: well, no, but it sure has been interesting for sure. especially, especially a special election. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> jon: cal, we played a little bit of this earlier. this is keith olbermann didn't
6:34 am
hold back in his reaction to the fact that scott brown, take a listen to what he had to say and let's talk about it. >> apologize for calling senator elect scott brown an irresponsible, homophobic, ration tl exnude model tea bagging parter against women and against whom politicians he disagree, i'm sorry, i left out the word sexist. >> jon: okay. that's-- >> this is why monobody watches his show. >> and there's a comalty and elliss and you asked why didn't we see this coming. we should have seen it coming most of the mainstream media in the tea party movement. pretty much ignored last spring and summer and town hall meetings, anger there bubbling from the bottom. most media elites don't hang out where the people do, rotary clubs, churches, synagogues, that sort of thing. they're note seeing that with their own eyes, they're living in new york and washington and talking to each other and probably don't know these people
6:35 am
at all. >> jon: you might be thinking of meredith vieria of the the today show saying to scott brown afterwards, of course, aren't you sort of embarrassed you took away teddy kennedy's dream? >> we've got that clip. let' play that to our viewers in case you missed it, you can hear this. >> you know, on a personal note you said last night the first call you made after your victory was to ted kennedy's widow, vicky. how comfortable was that for both of you knowing you plan to do everything you can to derail what ted kennedy calls, called the cause of his lifetime, which is health care reform? >> well, first of all, you're misrepresenting, i never said i'd do everything i can to stop health care, i believe that everybody should have health care, it's a question how we do it. >> jon: interesting. and you know, you've got to give him-- give the lawyer some credit here, he really parsed the language that she used in asking that question. >> yes, but i think the question is appropriate in that this had been a kind of legacy seat. in fact, i think it's-- one of the reasons the press
6:36 am
miss this had is that the assumption was, this is a democratic state. massachusetts is democratic, even though they elected republican governors and therefore, they really didn't see it coming. i think it's appropriate. >> we can't compensate in the media that hasn't happened and know it's going to happen. once this became clear, the changes that were made, it got huge coverage, but don't pretend, cal, you knew six months ago this was going to happen. >> the same argument with 9/11, why didn't we see 9/11 coming, weren't-- >> to cal's point is that the media missed the mood of the american populous. >> that's right. now what, as the mood began to shift you think those polls when she was up 30 were totally wrong? i think they were right then and right on the day after the election. >> it's a perfect example why they don't get it. howard feinman of news week appears on msnbc and likened the pickup truck that scott brown droofs to racism. there by everybody to drives a pickup truck is a racist. >> and it's a symbol--
6:37 am
>> speaking of msnbc, worth noting that joe scarboro as keith olbermann was saying the insane and inflammatory things, scarboro, a fellow msnbc host was tweeting this was ridiculous and wrong for olbermann to be saying that and it's interesting how that story of the fight between two msn bchbc in public hasn't gotten as much attention as it should. >> jon: where does media stand now on health care reform now that scott brown won the election? >> i think we've seen a lot of very, very good analysis. of the options now available to president obama. ej deen had a terrific piece and walter shapiro in politics daily says the president has to choose what he calls the banana republic energy, which is trying to move it through congress which they're not going to do now. or the john kerry, i was against it before i was for it moment and say, you know, look, this
6:38 am
thing is dead. i think now, the media pointed out that this thing looks dead for the moment. for the moment, politics i realize is unpredictable. >> if only it had health insurance, if they could resuscitate it. time for a quick break. if you want to hear what our panelists really think and i'm cutting jim off, something he wants to say, you can go to our website after the show to hear some of the things we don't say on tv. check out news watch. back in two minutes to talk about reporters doing double duty in haiti. are they crossing the line? >> images of the aftermath and trauma in haiti increase as the press settle in. but some reporters blur the line as they become the story rather than cover the story. and tiger's tale takes a turn as these pictures hit the press. is he fair game? detail
6:39 am
[ male announcer ] the volkswagon routan is not only unique in its german-tuned suspension, but in its maximum attention to detail, from individually operated dvd players, child monitoring mirror... [ gasps ] [ male announcer ] ...elegant leather seating surfaces and wireless headsets, to its voluminous storage compartments. make it the hero to any family. ew! ew! [ chuckles ] [ male announcer ] the volkswagen routan with 0% apr and 3 years or 36,000 miles of care free maintenance. and 3 years or 36,000 miles this is the card that bought the saw... that cut the lumber... that built the extra space i needed to store more produce... that she sold to me to make my menu more organic. introducing ink from chase. the card that helped make it all happen because it's accepted in twice as many places worldwide as american express. with reward points worth 25% more when redeemed for air travel.
6:40 am
make your mark with ink. go to chase what matters. some people like to pretend... a flood could never happen to them... and that their homeowners insurance... protects them. it doesn't. stop pretending. it can happen to you. protect your home with flood insurance.
6:41 am
call the number on your screen... for your free brochure. >> the news media working very hard to dry to bring the latest images and information from haiti this week. showing the trauma, the heart break, and the ongoing rescue and recovery efforts there. some other images from that region, doctors who are also reporters or medical correspondents for other networks telling the story or are they becoming the story? >> what i need to make sure is she doesn't have a skull fracture. the good news, i don't think she
6:42 am
do does. and that's good. >> all right. judy, you've been in some pretty tough situations, when you see reporting like that, is that crossing the line? >> i think with almost any other profession it may be, but with doctors, they get a pass. because they take an oath first and foremost, you know, do no harm and help-- we're human beings first, when you see disaster on that scale, i think it was justified. however, what's not justified is to use those shots to promote ratings and your own standing as a news network. it is a slippery slope, i mean, if i'm a lawyer and i am covering a trial, i don't jump up and rush to help the prosecution or the defense make a better case, on the other hand, this is human suffering and i think it was appropriate. >> yeah, i don't know. i mean, are those victims of the earthquake or are they props for cnn or somebody? >> well, they are props, but every victim of a disaster has always been a prop for the reporter.
6:43 am
this time around for the first time in my memory, the reporters, doctor reporters are actually helping. i'm not quite sure i see judy's distinction between the networks doing it for the ratings and reporters doing it to help. the reporter were paid to go there and paid for the camera running to do it. i basically agree with that, jennifer ashton, nancy snyderman, gupta, leave some out, for some networks, are doing their hippocratic duty and a good thing, repeat a good thing to help. and if they get ratings, fine. >> aim a little more cynical than jim and judy. it's good theater and gets ratings. and stories we don't always care about, but nothing to be apologized for in our role. let' go there, tell the story as well as we can, convince people to act as they may be reluctant to otherwise, let's do our jobs. he can't be an absolutist, if somebody is dying in your arms, you've got to help, but-- >> that's what happened and
6:44 am
pretty much happened. >> i would like to see the reporters go further. take it to where the troops are, remember, some years ago, they-- some people there was a panel at some university or something with mike wallace the late peter jennings and others, the question was if you knew that attack was coming on american troops would you tell them to spare them and jennings said no. no, that's right. so let's have some consistency here, if you're on the side of humanity when it comes to haiti. let' have the reporters on the side of american reporters when defending your freedom to make all that money. >> anderson cooper was a part of the fundraiser, who are haiti. is that appropriate. >> i don't think you should do political fundraiser, if he wants to help raise money for suffering earthquake victims, i'm okay with it. >> jon: judy. >> i'm okay with it. too. a number of news publications really examined this issue and talked about the issue and inherent potential conflict so i think pretty much, i think the media did okay on this one in
6:45 am
raising the questions inherent in the dual roles. >> jon: when you've got, you know, okay there he is, george clooney on one side and you've got anderson cooper on the other, anybody going to mistake anderson cooper for an entertainer? >> oh, probably, but i would say, this lends itself to scrutiny. in other words, the old media culture, the columbia journalism school culture has been pretty hostile to the phenomenon of doctors helping patients and and anderson cooper doing telethons, a pafair amount of criticism. let's see them prove relationship that makes it a scandal. for now helping devastated people, who can be against that. >> the last time george clooney did something like this, bill o'reilly do a follow-up where the money went. i'm all for the touchy feeley, where the money went, another
6:46 am
rat hole in haiti. >> jon: we wiif you see a news has media bias, e-mail us. and the latest gaffe get from the national enquirer. >> an anchor makes an admission about the mainstream immediate. >>yeah, the balance is not there for the mainstream media. >> is this a wakeup call to liberal cohorts. the americans want less government and washington post has the proof, but are they hiding the details? answers next on news watch.
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
>> all right. so is this tiger woods or just someone who looks an awful like the golf great outside a sex rehab center in mississippi? the first image seen on the
6:50 am
pages of the national enquirer and reprinted in the new york post. what about that? i mean, first of all, the media pretty much took this story and ran with it. i don't know, can you tell that that's tiger woods? >> i'm not sure. i suspect if it's not tiger woods somebody's got a pretty good lawsuit on their hands. looks, hats off again to the nation national enquirer, which consistently gets skop after scoop after scoop and if there are any justice, somebody will give them a pulitzer prize. >> yeah, they broke the john edwards story a long time ago, should they get the pulitzer. >> maybe they should. jim is right about that. they've done a terrific stream of good reporting, held up at least as well as some other organizations, sometimes on trashy subjects. let's quit being snobs about it and give credit where it's due. >> jon: i don't think judy degrees with you. >> i want to know how much information they get they pay for. we don't pay for news, it is a
6:51 am
sacred rule in many responsible news organizations and while i applaud their innovation, their determination to get to the quote, bottom of the story, i want to know if they got to the bottom of their checkbooks. >> am i the only one to suggest that since tiger woods got in trouble, or at least has been outed, that he seems to have gotten darker in the media in his complexion? the same thing with o.j. simpson, you may recall the controversy of the time magazine cover, after he was arrested for you know, killing his wife and ron goldman, he got darker and there was a big brouhaha whether that was done deliberately. look at that picture if it really is him. look at other pictures as well. the one on the golf course with the nike hat and the you know, the shirt, has him far lighter complected. >> he is under a hood and a ball cap there or a golf cap. >> i'm not touching that one. you heard it first. >> going from uncovering details
6:52 am
to burying them and a new washington post abc news poll says most americans would like a smaller government. 58% responding said they favor a smaller government with fewer services. 38% said they favor a larger government with more services. "the washington post" did a big story about the poll, but basically didn't make much of a mention of those results. why? jim? >> well, to be honest, jon, i'm not sure i agree with your premise. it was in the story, dan balls wrote it. >> jon: the numbers were in the story, but didn't dissect it. >> the basic 3-2 split on exactly this question bigger government versus smaller government is a familiar number around for a long time. you know, let somebody else knock this one out of the park, but i kind of agree with the post. >> and i agree with jim on this, absolutely. i think that there was so much in that story that was more news worthy and the numbers were there in the story. so i really don't think that
6:53 am
they buried it. >> jon: and why make a mountain out of a mole hill. >> i'm sorry, jon. >> the other one in there 100% of the people want the government to do what they want the government to do. that number stays the same, jim. >> look, "the washington post" editorial page in the city of washington d.c. where the federal government is the biggest employer likes big government. it gives them plenty to write about. they sell newspapers to an awful lot of government people. of course they're going to be for big government and bury the lead. >> jon: all right. now from ignoring some aspect of the story, or so it seemed to me anyway, to spinning the facts. msnbc anchor, who is out trying to sell a book, gave us this little gem. >> working the mainstream media for all the networks and i will say what people aren't saying, it's got a liberal world view. there are great people working at the networks and they're
6:54 am
mostly democrats, okay? and they try really hard to be objective, really hard and they do a great job at it, but the balance is not there within the objective mainstream media it's not. it is not. >> jon: what do you think about that? a member of the media says there's no balance. >> she's trying to sell a book, i'm glad you pointed that out. i'm a print guy and i think there's a distinction between reporters and opinion people. reporters have to strive to be fair and i don't frankly think they ought to be declaring how they vote. opinion people, now what, let it all hang out, say whatever you want and be as open as you like. >> i don't think that elliss answered your question. >> no, it's an important distinction that few traditionalists hold on to. >> it is an important distinction, but don't you think she had a point? in other words, having a quiet identification that is not announced to readers is not a good thing and claiming that you're objective because you
6:55 am
don't tell readers that you're actually an avid democrat or republican, and you give money to the party and you do all these things, while you're supposedly giving a fair, neutral assessment of-- i think there ought to be more disclosure and she's right. >> are those standards. i think it's irrelevant, everybody knows what you know. you've got google and you can find out what they believe. the studies have been going on over 30 years of course they're liberal, of course mostly democrats and mika had a contradiction, she said i think they're objective, but also not fair. >> jon: okay, we have to take one more break. when we come back, how has the relationship between the president and press changed over the last year? >> we've gone from this to this. and when the press asks questions, this. >> well, hold on, hold on, hold hold, hold, hold, hold. hold, hold, hold. >> what lies ahead? all next on news watch. we get mcnally these numbers this instant, we make the sale.
6:56 am
we make our month. we make our year. will you have 3g coverage when you need it most ? kick the small-business blues by putting your business on the map. oh, come on ! check, please. get almost 5x more 3g coverage than at&t with verizon wireless. come into a store today to buy one blackberry and get another one free. and put your business on the map. over a million people have discovered how easy it is
6:57 am
to use legalzoom for important legal documents. at legalzoom we'll help you incorporate your business, file a patent, make a will and more. you can complete our online questions in minutes. then we'll prepare your legal documents and deliver them directly to you. so start your business, protect your family, launch your dreams. at we put the law on your side.
6:58 am
>> jon: hold on, hold on, hold, hold, hold. hold, hold, hold on. >> i'm happy to send out a read out of meeting prior to it ending. hold on, hold on. >> whether i grow up i want to be press secretary, robert gibbs trying to control the message holding back reporters from asking questions about transparency or lack thereof.
6:59 am
it's an issue that has been dogging the administration. has there been a change in relationship between the press and the president? >> the honeymoon is long over. if we are doing our jobs right, he is going to be even more frustrated with us than he is today. >> yet in the same week that saw new week that saw scott brown elected, gibbs is going to be on fox news sunday. >> obviously gibbs is on offensive. but the new communication director is still carrying on the war. >> next thing ellis will be on hold on, hold on, hold on. be sure to join us wednesday night right here on fox news channel for complete coverage of the president's state of the union address. we'll take it apart next week on news watch. that is a wrap for this week's edition. thanks to the panel and see you next

The O Reilly Factor
FOX News January 24, 2010 6:00am-7:00am EST

News/Business. Host Bill O'Reilly interviews newsmakers.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Scott Brown 14, Washington 9, Haiti 7, Massachusetts 6, Clinton 5, Msnbc 4, Anderson Cooper 4, Pelosi 4, New York 4, George Stephanopoulos 3, Paul 3, Obama 3, Jim 3, Cal 3, At&t 2, Verizon Wireless 2, Geico 2, Virginia 2, Jimmy Carter 2, Kim 2
Network FOX News
Duration 01:00:00
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 6/26/2011